The ethics of installing Windows Vista

MICHAEL · External Since: Jun 22, 2006 Posts: 1382

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1

By Brian Livingston

I reported on Feb. 1 that the upgrade version of Windows Vista accepts itself as a product it
can upgrade over, and on Feb. 15 that Vista has a built-in command that allows you to extend
its activation deadline from 30 days to 120 days.

Those articles were very popular with readers - the Feb. 1 story garnered a reader rating of
4.49 out of 5, the highest score of any article the newsletter has ever published - but that
doesn't mean that these reports aren't controversial.

Support for revealing the secrets of Vista

Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't perform even the
simplest test for a qualifying operating system before the upgrade version will install. Any
running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any
version-testing code makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had deliberately eliminated from the
product.

continued.....
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1

jimmy fallon · External Since: Sep 24, 2006 Posts: 74

Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows a second
time just to accomplish a clean install. I bought the goddamn xp, so it
should prompt me for the GD disc. NOW, after reinstalling Vista over itself
the screen saver freezes on me. Other wise not so bad... a real slap in the
face for those of us who just want to get to work.
jf

"MICHAEL" wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
>
> By Brian Livingston
>
> I reported on Feb. 1 that the upgrade version of Windows Vista accepts itself as a product it
> can upgrade over, and on Feb. 15 that Vista has a built-in command that allows you to extend
> its activation deadline from 30 days to 120 days.
>
> Those articles were very popular with readers - the Feb. 1 story garnered a reader rating of
> 4.49 out of 5, the highest score of any article the newsletter has ever published - but that
> doesn't mean that these reports aren't controversial.
>
> Support for revealing the secrets of Vista
>
> Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't perform even the
> simplest test for a qualifying operating system before the upgrade version will install. Any
> running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any
> version-testing code makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
> blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had deliberately eliminated from the
> product.
>
>
> continued.....
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
>
>

Gary · External Since: Oct 13, 2006 Posts: 163

No there is nothing unique about the disk, it should ask for a qualifying
key.

"jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8FEEE3E7-45D1-414D-B86F-3316046D27BC@microsoft.com...
> Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows a
> second
> time just to accomplish a clean install. I bought the goddamn xp, so it
> should prompt me for the GD disc. NOW, after reinstalling Vista over
> itself
> the screen saver freezes on me. Other wise not so bad... a real slap in
> the
> face for those of us who just want to get to work.
> jf

jimmy fallon · External Since: Sep 24, 2006 Posts: 74

When I called microsoft about the issue of it wanting to activate a month
after installing, there fix was to load Vista on top of itself and then put
in the key code on the box.
jf

"Gary" wrote:

> No there is nothing unique about the disk, it should ask for a qualifying
> key.
>
>
> "jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8FEEE3E7-45D1-414D-B86F-3316046D27BC@microsoft.com...
> > Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows a
> > second
> > time just to accomplish a clean install. I bought the goddamn xp, so it
> > should prompt me for the GD disc. NOW, after reinstalling Vista over
> > itself
> > the screen saver freezes on me. Other wise not so bad... a real slap in
> > the
> > face for those of us who just want to get to work.
> > jf
>
>
>

Justin · External Since: Jan 02, 2007 Posts: 1877

"Gary" <Gary.RemoveThis@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
news:#D1MqlcYHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> No there is nothing unique about the disk, it should ask for a qualifying
> key.

I agree with that one.

The upgrade route is horrible.

Dweebs · External Since: Feb 04, 2007 Posts: 22

I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and misleading
for me.

Regards,
Dweebs
"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr.RemoveThis@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23hJcv4bYHHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
> Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't
> perform even the simplest test for a qualifying operating system before
> the upgrade version will install. Any running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to
> Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any version-testing code
> makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
> blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had deliberately
> eliminated from the product.

Justin · External Since: Jan 02, 2007 Posts: 1877

That's because XP RTM doesn't know if it's genuine. XP SP2 does. Vista
must install on a "genuine" install of XP.

"Dweebs" <dweebken DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8B7AC769-6F53-45F5-AF6E-F3BE5DF0F55F@microsoft.com...
>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
>get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
>that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
>concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>misleading for me.
>
> Regards,
> Dweebs
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr DeleteThis @dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23hJcv4bYHHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
>> Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't
>> perform even the simplest test for a qualifying operating system before
>> the upgrade version will install. Any running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to
>> Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any version-testing code
>> makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
>> blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had
>> deliberately eliminated from the product.
>

Shane Nokes · External Since: Feb 10, 2007 Posts: 259

It's not misleading at all.

XP RTM is no longer supported.

In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
version of that platform.

Read deeper into licensing terms and you shall find the answers you seek.

"Dweebs" <dweebken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8B7AC769-6F53-45F5-AF6E-F3BE5DF0F55F@microsoft.com...
>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
>get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
>that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
>concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>misleading for me.
>
> Regards,
> Dweebs
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr RemoveThis @dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23hJcv4bYHHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
>> Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't
>> perform even the simplest test for a qualifying operating system before
>> the upgrade version will install. Any running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to
>> Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any version-testing code
>> makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
>> blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had
>> deliberately eliminated from the product.
>

Justin · External Since: Jan 02, 2007 Posts: 1877

"Shane Nokes" <Morpheus_Phreak.TakeThisOut@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uEofpGGcHHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You can on a full retail copy, but not on an upgrade copy.
>
> Upgrade keys do not support a "normal" scenario where you can just format
> the drive and install minus a key and then activate.
>
> You have to do that 2nd install first.

I couldn't get any confirmation from him as to what he actually did. It
sounds like he attempted the "upgrade clean install" which breaks the EULA:

"Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows a second
time just to accomplish a clean install."

"cquirke · External Since: Feb 11, 2007 Posts: 560

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"

>XP RTM is no longer supported.
>
>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>version of that platform.

Not immediately, at not with MS. Usually the last supported SP level
is the SP before the current one, if not older.

Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".

Tax depreciates PCs on a straight-line basis over 3 years. That
implies an expected lifetime of 3 years at least. That in turn means
you will probably have to install at least one SP with MS OSs, and
upgrade the OS every year or so with Ubuntu.

>"Dweebs" <dweebken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
>>get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
>>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
>>that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
>>concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>>misleading for me.

I agree with you. What if you have:
- XP Gold CD
- the Vista "upgrade" product
- costly/slow modem dial-up
?

It would be nice if Vista Upgrade (or fullpack that supports upgrade
use) came with XP SP2 and installed it first if that is really needed.

I can think of a few reasons why installing Vista over XP Gold could
be risky, given that XP Gold can't "see" over 137G. It may be using a
workaround that is invalidated by Vista when that installs?

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

NoStop · External Since: Feb 11, 2007 Posts: 96

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"
>
>>XP RTM is no longer supported.
>>
>>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>>version of that platform.
>
> Not immediately, at not with MS. Usually the last supported SP level
> is the SP before the current one, if not older.
>
> Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
> listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".
>
Quite yacking about something you're obviously so clueless about! Typical
MVP ignorance and FUD.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS is the version that has Long Time Support. 5 years in fact.
Ubuntu 6.10 is a bleeding edge release that will be replaced in April with
another LTS release. Ubuntu 6.10, ie. "Edgy" is for those who want the
latest and don't mind putting up with any instabilities in applications
that are in a constant state of development and innovating.

GNU/Linux and the Ubuntu distribution in particular presses ahead with new
innovations all the time. Those who want the real stable release with the
long time support use the LTS version. This would normally be businesses
and enterprises. Those who want to always stay on the bleeding edge of
developments in the Open Source community pick the other versions.

With Ubuntu users have a CHOICE. With Windoze, you get what MickeyMouse
feeds you and charges you based on their very slow release schedule.

All versions of Ubuntu cost the user nothing. The latest versions reflect
the most advanced features of any operating system out there, bar none.

Cheers.

> Tax depreciates PCs on a straight-line basis over 3 years. That
> implies an expected lifetime of 3 years at least. That in turn means
> you will probably have to install at least one SP with MS OSs, and
> upgrade the OS every year or so with Ubuntu.
>
>>"Dweebs" <dweebken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me
>>>to get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install
>>>SP2
>>>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade
>>>box that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as
>>>I'm concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>>>misleading for me.
>
> I agree with you. What if you have:
> - XP Gold CD
> - the Vista "upgrade" product
> - costly/slow modem dial-up
> ?
>
> It would be nice if Vista Upgrade (or fullpack that supports upgrade
> use) came with XP SP2 and installed it first if that is really needed.
>
> I can think of a few reasons why installing Vista over XP Gold could
> be risky, given that XP Gold can't "see" over 137G. It may be using a
> workaround that is invalidated by Vista when that installs?
>
>
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=

"No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice."
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html

"cquirke · External Since: Feb 11, 2007 Posts: 560

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:28:57 -0700, NoStop <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"

>>>XP RTM is no longer supported.

>>>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>>>version of that platform.

>> Not immediately, at least not with MS. Usually the last supported SP
>> level is the SP before the current one, if not older.
>>
>> Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
>> listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".

>Quite yacking about something you're obviously so clueless about! Typical
>MVP ignorance and FUD.

On the contrary, how else would I have learned this...

>Ubuntu 6.06 LTS is the version that has Long Time Support. 5 years in fact.
>Ubuntu 6.10 is a bleeding edge release that will be replaced in April with
>another LTS release. Ubuntu 6.10, ie. "Edgy" is for those who want the
>latest and don't mind putting up with any instabilities in applications
>that are in a constant state of development and innovating.

.... Smile

Thanks for the clarification!

>GNU/Linux and the Ubuntu distribution in particular presses ahead with new
>innovations all the time. Those who want the real stable release with the
>long time support use the LTS version. This would normally be businesses
>and enterprises. Those who want to always stay on the bleeding edge of
>developments in the Open Source community pick the other versions.

OK, so it's a bit like joing a public beta for the newest versions;
fair enough, and fits with the open source philosophy.

>With Ubuntu users have a CHOICE. With Windoze, you get what MickeyMouse
>feeds you and charges you based on their very slow release schedule.

Nevertheless, the assumption that Windows "forces you to upgrade more
often" than Linux may not be true. The Ubuntu example I mentioned
isn't the first time folks have mentioned fast support retirement (the
other example was one of the pay-for-support Linux distros).

Then again, unless you are using a pay-for-support Linux, the question
of when the "vendor" drops support may not matter, as being open
source, ongoing repairs can come from elsewhere, for free.

What may matter more, is whether Linux can be upgraded cleanly,
without breaking installed apps and/or requiring a "wipe and rebuild".
What's the mileage on that?

>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

NoStop · External Since: Feb 11, 2007 Posts: 96

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:28:57 -0700, NoStop <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"
>
>>>>XP RTM is no longer supported.
>
>>>>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>>>>version of that platform.
>
>>> Not immediately, at least not with MS. Usually the last supported SP
>>> level is the SP before the current one, if not older.
>>>
>>> Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
>>> listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".
>
>>Quite yacking about something you're obviously so clueless about! Typical
>>MVP ignorance and FUD.
>
> On the contrary, how else would I have learned this...
>
>>Ubuntu 6.06 LTS is the version that has Long Time Support. 5 years in
>>fact. Ubuntu 6.10 is a bleeding edge release that will be replaced in
>>April with another LTS release. Ubuntu 6.10, ie. "Edgy" is for those who
>>want the latest and don't mind putting up with any instabilities in
>>applications that are in a constant state of development and innovating.
>
> ... Smile

>
> Thanks for the clarification!
>
>>GNU/Linux and the Ubuntu distribution in particular presses ahead with new
>>innovations all the time. Those who want the real stable release with the
>>long time support use the LTS version. This would normally be businesses
>>and enterprises. Those who want to always stay on the bleeding edge of
>>developments in the Open Source community pick the other versions.
>
> OK, so it's a bit like joing a public beta for the newest versions;
> fair enough, and fits with the open source philosophy.
>
>>With Ubuntu users have a CHOICE. With Windoze, you get what MickeyMouse
>>feeds you and charges you based on their very slow release schedule.
>
> Nevertheless, the assumption that Windows "forces you to upgrade more
> often" than Linux may not be true. The Ubuntu example I mentioned
> isn't the first time folks have mentioned fast support retirement (the
> other example was one of the pay-for-support Linux distros).
>
> Then again, unless you are using a pay-for-support Linux, the question
> of when the "vendor" drops support may not matter, as being open
> source, ongoing repairs can come from elsewhere, for free.
>
> What may matter more, is whether Linux can be upgraded cleanly,
> without breaking installed apps and/or requiring a "wipe and rebuild".
> What's the mileage on that?
>
So far, with my limited upgrades, I haven't experienced any problems. I
upgraded from Dapper to Edgy using a one line command. The upgrade did take
hours as over 1200 packages got downloaded and replaced what I had with
Dapper. The end result - running Edgy now with all my data intact from
email messages, to all program settings. I'm lead to believe that upgrading
from Edgy to Feisty will be just as easy. But I'm only going to do that
when Feisty is in general release.

I upgraded to Edgy because it comes with AIGLX already installed, allowing
for an easy installation of Beryl, the 3D desktop which is second to none
in terms of useability and configurability and just plain gorgeous
eye-candy. Smile

Cheers.

>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=

"No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice."
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html